MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982657597 · doi:10.1117/12.817502

Detecting targets hidden in random forests

2009· article· en· W1982657597 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Kouritzin, Dandan Luo, Fraser Newton, Biao Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCamouflageRandom forestComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceHidden Markov modelWeightingMarkov chainPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionRemote sensingMachine learningGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Military tanks, cargo or troop carriers, missile carriers or rocket launchers often hide themselves from detection in the forests. This plagues the detection problem of locating these hidden targets. An electro-optic camera mounted on a surveillance aircraft or unmanned aerial vehicle is used to capture the images of the forests with possible hidden targets, e.g., rocket launchers. We consider random forests of longitudinal and latitudinal correlations. Specifically, foliage coverage is encoded with a binary representation (i.e., foliage or no foliage), and is correlated in adjacent regions. We address the detection problem of camouflaged targets hidden in random forests by building memory into the observations. In particular, we propose an efficient algorithm to generate random forests, ground, and camouflage of hidden targets with two dimensional correlations. The observations are a sequence of snapshots consisting of foliage-obscured ground or target. Theoretically, detection is possible because there are subtle differences in the correlations of the ground and camouflage of the rocket launcher. However, these differences are well beyond human perception. To detect the presence of hidden targets automatically, we develop a Markov representation for these sequences and modify the classical filtering equations to allow the Markov chain observation. Particle filters are used to estimate the position of the targets in combination with a novel random weighting technique. Furthermore, we give positive proof-of-concept simulations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207